Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/299

 EMIOH V. B. & 0. B. co. 287 �track will endure without sliding; and as one pair of these ■wheels will always be one of the pairs to which the Hodge brake distributes the greater amount of pressure, that limit will be reached with the Hodge brake before any of the-other wheels have received the fuU retardirig pressure which might be safely applied to them. The difference between th© press- ure distributed to the end wheels as compared with the inner wheels, with the Hodge brake, as usually constructed, is 33J- per cent. The disparity in the pressure on the track caused by the tipping of the truck When the brakfea'are applied to a train in motion, is estimated to be about 15 pei- ceut. The average aggregate retarding pressure which can be applied to the wheels of a car with the Stevens brake is calculated f rom these data to be 20 per cent, more than-'Xrith the Hodge brake. , �We think that the complainants have made it appear by testimony that by tho use of the Stevens brake properly con- strueted, and kept in effective working order, there not only should be, but that there is, particularly when operated by hand power, a very appreciable saving in the wear of car wheels; and on this point the complainants have produced some very positive testimony showing the money value of the wheels thus saved. The difficulties of proving the exact money value of this saving to this particular defendant are exceptionally embarrassing. The Stevens patent was never generally acquiesced in, and it would appear that the def end- ant's railroad is one of the very few on which it was intro- duced under the supervision of the inventor, and constructed as exhibitea in his patent. �Oil many of the railroads on which the defendant claims that it was used, and on which it did not prove itself to be superior to the Hodge brake, it appears that it was used without license, and was so imperfectly constructed that it worked badly, and quickly got out of order. None of the difficulties testified to by the witnesses, who speak of its use on other roads in these imperf ect forms, are shown by any testimony to have been experienced by the defendant. �It would also seem that the results of the use of the two ��� �